House Democrats' New Strategy: Force Slow End to War

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.

The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable.

As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement -- the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.

Murtha and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have decided that they must take the lead in pressuring not only Republicans but also cautious Senate Democrats to take steps more aggressive than nonbinding resolutions in challenging the Bush administration.

The House strategy is being crafted quietly, even as the chamber is immersed this week in an emotional, albeit mostly symbolic, debate over a resolution expressing opposition to Bush's plan to "surge" 21,500 more troops into Iraq.

Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That's a standard Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet.

In addition, Murtha, acting with the backing of the House Democratic leadership, will seek to limit the time and number of deployments by soldiers, Marines and National Guard units to Iraq, making it tougher for Pentagon officials to find the troops to replace units that are scheduled to rotate out of the country. Additional funding restrictions are also being considered by Murtha, such as prohibiting the creation of U.S. military bases inside Iraq, dismantling the notorious Abu Ghraib prison and closing the American detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"There's a D-Day coming in here, and it's going to start with the supplemental and finish with the '08 [defense] budget," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, who chairs the Air and Land Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee.

Pelosi and other top Democrats are not yet prepared for an open battle with the White House over ending funding for the war, and they are wary of Republican claims that Democratic leaders would endanger the welfare of U.S. troops. The new approach of first reducing the number of troops available for the conflict, while maintaining funding levels for units already in the field, gives political cover to conservative House Democrats who are nervous about appearing "anti-military" while also mollifying the anti-war left, which has long been agitating for Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to be more aggressive.

"What we have staked out is a campaign to stop the war without cutting off funding" for the troops, said Tom Mazzie of Americans Against Escalation of the War in Iraq. "We call it the 'readiness strategy.'"

Murtha's proposal, which has been kept under tight wraps, is likely to pass the House next month or in early April as part of the supplemental spending bill, Democratic insiders said, if the language remains tightly focused and does not threaten funding levels for combat forces already in the field. The battle will then shift to the Senate. Anti-war groups like Mazzie's are prepared to spend at least $6.5 million on a TV ad campaign and at least $2 million more on a grass-roots lobbying effort. Vulnerable GOP incumbents like Sens. Norm Coleman of Minnestoa, Susan Collins of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon and John Sununu of New Hampshire will be targeted by the anti-war organizations, according to Mazzie and former Rep. Tom Andrews, D-Maine, head of the Win Without War Coalition.

Mazzie also said anti-war groups would field primary and general election challengers to Democratic lawmakers who do not support proposals to end the war, a direct challenge to conservative incumbents who are attempting to straddle the political line between their pro- and anti-war constituents.

If the Senate does not approve these new funding restrictions, or if Senate Republicans filibuster the supplemental bill, Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership would then be able to ratchet up the political pressure on the White House to accede to their demands by "slow-walking" the supplemental bill. Additionally, House Democrats could try to insert the Murtha provisions into the fiscal 2008 defense authorization and spending bills, which are scheduled to come to the floor later in the year.

"We will set benchmarks for readiness," said a top Democratic leadership aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. If enacted, these provisions would have the effect of limiting the number of troops available for the Bush surge plan, while blunting the GOP charge that Democrats are cutting funding for the troops. "We are not cutting funding for any [unit] in Iraq," said the aide, who admitted the Democratic maneuver would not prevent the president from sending some additional forces to Baghdad. "We want to limit the number who can go ... We're trying to build a case that the president needs to change course."

Mazzie, though, suggested that Democrats ought to directly rebut the Republican charge that Democrats are threatening the safety of American forces in the field by pushing restrictions on war funding. "Cutting off funding as described by the media and White House is a caricature," Mazzie said. "It has never happened in U.S. history, and it won't happen now."

Andrews, who met with Murtha on Tuesday to discuss legislative strategy, acknowledged "there is a relationship" with the House Democratic leadership and the anti-war groups, but added, "It is important for our members that we not be seen as an arm of the Democratic Caucus or the Democratic Party. We're not hand in glove."

Andrews's group has launched a new Web site, MoveCongress.org, and he has already posted an interview with Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., one of the founders of the "Out of Iraq Caucus" in the House. An interview with Murtha on his legislative strategy will be posted on the site Thursday.

"I don't know how you vote against Murtha," said Andrews. "It's kind of an ingenious thing."

It's just sad. Our guys out there need our help, they have a mission, there's a new strategy, it seems they'll have more aggressive involvement and Iraqi involvement this time. All they need is the support from THEIR OWN COUNTRY (more manpower and equip). Isn't that sad. It's maddening and breaks your heart but DON'T GIVE UP- don't ever give up you Conservatives. Sooner or later the wiser people come to their senses and the not so wise need something to complain about which is whoever's presently in charge (which is the Congress right now). I just hope when things get turned around again, it's not too late. Why is it on the news we always see the "anti-war" protesters. Where's the "troop-supporters"? I know they have a bigger mouth but come on....where's the voice of supporters, conservatives, and of reason?

so that you can sooth your own mind by punishing a RINO. It is simply the most stupid, selfish and egotistical expression to vote out a Republican, RINO or not, and allow Democrats to take over

Your line of reasoning makes two glaring mistakes. Your premises are that: A)That's what I did personally, and; B)The motivation for taking out a RINO is to punish them and to let a democrat take over, just to make a point.

I live under two of the biggest idiots in the government of the United States, Senators Olympia Snowe (R) and Susan Collins ("I" for independant socialist). Do I want them out because I believe that they weaken this country? You're damn right I do. Did I vote for Snowe in the primaries? Heeeeeellllllll no! Did she sweep the primary? She sure did, because there was no other candidate that came even remotely close. That being the case,I voted for her in the general election, along with a straight rep. ticket.

I'm sure that some Republicans voted Democrat or Independent to "punish" their left-leaning representatives; however, the Rpublicans lost the election because they have been acting like politicians rather than leaders. The number one ballot box issue in nearly every poll? CORRUPTION.That causes the Republican base to fracture during the primaries as some go in search of a better candidate, and causes the easily-led sheep in the "independent voter" category to lean left of center. Was this primarily because the leftist media painted a pretty picture of the Socialist Lite Party Of Corruption, while damning the Republicans? Of course it was, but that is another issue.

The Republicans didn't lose in a landslide:they lost just enough seats to lose the House and Senate. If you want to point a finger at a voting block, point it at the swing voters, who wouldn't know the right side of a political issue if it bit them on the ass. The majority of the Republican base voted "R".

You just proved that there is NO REASONING behind what some of you are doing, do the detriment of your own agenda. It is ALL ABOUT YOU, not Conservatism, blah, blah, blah...

Again, you jump up on a soapbox to try and come to a conclusion without knowing the actual facts. Change happens incrementally. We need to change the direction of the Republican party, and that is a fact. However, I believe that THE PRIMARIES ARE THE ONLY LOGICAL PLACE TO EFFECT CHANGE; after that, you vote what is best for the America... which is obviously REPUBLICAN! Have you even read my tagline? Checked my posting history? When some of my "conservative" representatives pull liberal crap like shamnesty or spending like drunken sailors, they weaken my country and everything it stands for. For that reason, it's time for them to go. However, with all the idiocy that has gone on in the Republican't party (do I really have to go into all of it?), they are still better than the democrats by a mile.

These people are worse than disgusting. They are pure, conniving evil.

They plan to lose the war in Iraq and turn the country over to chaos and allow it to become an Islamic power base, disrupt any attempt to throttle Iran, destroy our military morale and capabilities, blame the upcoming disaster on President Bush, gain ultimate political power so they can abandon the war against Islamic Fascism, and geld those left who want to pursue this deadly war on our side. Their Media sycophants will provide whatever cover they need.

These people are no better than Al Qaeda - worse, actually, as they claim to be patriotic Americans. Instead, they should be counted in our enemy's camp.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.